Rekha Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 17105 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rekha Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 14 May, 2024

Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar

Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36816
 
Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4414 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Rekha Devi And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
 

1.The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing charge sheet dated 22.1.2021 submitted in case crime No.526 of 2020 under sections 2/3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Khandasa, district Ayodhya and order dated 3.11.2021 passed by ACJM-II, Faizabad along with entire criminal proceeding of case No.589 of 2021 State versus Santosh Kumar.

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. There is a remedy under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and therefore, the criminal proceedings are barred and the first information report and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4.A perusal of the first information report and the charge sheet shows that prima facie commission of offence by which public path has been encroached twice by the petitioner is made out and therefore, first information report has been lodged.

As regards the remedy under section 67 of U.P. Reveue Code, 2006, it is a civil remedy and the first information report and the impugned proceedings are under the Special Act. Both have different consequences and availability of remedy under section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code cannot be a bar for lodging a first information report under Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984.

5.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. while opposing the petition submits that civil and criminal proceedings both can run simultaneously. In this context, he has relied on a judgment of this Court at Allahabad in Devnath Yadav versus State of U.P. and others Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1131 of 2021.

6.On due consideration to the argument advanced, perusal of the record as also the judgment referred to above, I find no merit in the petition.

7.The petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Order Date :- 14.5.2024

kkb/